Scott Pruitt Shows Himself To Be Even More of a Hypocrite

 

Scott Pruitt Shows Himself To Be Even More of a Hypocrite

Scott Pruitt, the new director of the EPA, shows himself to be even more of a hypocrite at the CPAC convention.

He seems to be very pleased, even though the EPA is targeted for a 25% budget cut. Even though this speech was given more than a week before Donald Trump came out with this new budget, I would dare say that Scott Pruitt was well aware of these budget cuts at the time of his speech.

It is no secret that Scott Pruitt has long been an opponent of the EPA and its mission for quite a while. In fact, he has sued this agency four times while he was Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma. These lawsuits were against the EPA for trying to regulate the harmful practice of fracking; something which is commonplace in Oklahoma because of the significant amount of natural gas and oil that found there. He takes this position despite the fact that fracking causes an increased number of earthquakes, which have occurred in Oklahoma over the last several years.

It seems very ironic that Scott Pruitt gives a speech in which he says that his agency, the EPA, will no longer impose its environmental regulations on states that oppose them. In other words, Scott Pruitt is giving the green light to businesses to do whatever they want, no matter how harmful it may be to the environment.

It strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy for Scott Pruitt, the newly chosen director of the EPA to promise that his agency will not perform the job that it was designed for when it was created in the 70s. It is even more ironic that the EPA was formed during the time of Richard Nixon, a Republican.

 

Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A. …

Dec 7, 2016 Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Wednesday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.
EPA chief Scott Pruitt says CO2 not a primary contributor to warming

13 hours ago Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global …

 

The Bakken Shale: Fracking in North Dakota

Lately, we have been hearing a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline, mostly about the negative affect it will have on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, but most people don’t know anything about its relationship to the Bakken oil field in North Dakota.

The Bakken Shale: Fracking in North Dakota

We have heard a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline, mostly about the over the effect it will have on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, but most people don’t know anything about its relationship to the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota.  It is important to understand the relationship between the two.

For the past several years, there has been an oil boom happening in the state of North Dakota.  This oil boom is because of oil that was discovered in what is called the Bakken Shale, or the Bakken Shale formation.  The Bakken Shale formation is a large deposit of shale containing oil that is in eastern Shale Montana, Western North Dakota, and part of Saskatchewan, in Canada.

Even though the so-called Bakken oil boom has the potential to create jobs and puts more revenue into the economy of North Dakota, it also poses a significant threat to the environment of that region.  To mention that the oil produced in the Bakken Shale formation will create a necessity to lay a pipeline to help transportation of this oil to where it can be refined into different products.  The Dakota Access Pipeline is being built to carriers oil from the Bakken Shale Formation.

As we know, this pipeline threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and other people living in that particular region because it will be necessary to build this pipeline under the Missouri River, upon which many depend on for their water supply.  Also, this pipeline will also pose a threat to the underground aquifer that is also the supply of a significant amount of water to this region.

To produce oil from the Bakken Shale, it will be necessary for the oil companies to use the controversial and environmentally dangerous technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or just known as fracking.

There has been a huge controversy over fracking, to the point where it has been banned in a couple of states and is the source of large-scale protest across the nation.

Fracking has proven itself to be harmful because it requires the consumption of massive quantities of water and the use of many toxic chemicals, which are pumped underground to force oil from the Bakken Shale.  The use of fracking is a major reason that environmentalists are opposed to further development of the Bakken oil field.

At a time when our nation is trying to end its dependency on fossil fuels, such as petroleum and coal, further developing the Bakken oil field flies in the face of our need to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels.

 

THE DEATH OF THE BAKKEN FIELD HAS BEGUN: Big Trouble For …

Sep 17, 2016 Rune Likvern of Fractional Flow has done a wonderful job providing data on the Bakken Shale Oil Field. Here is his excellent chart showing the …
Bakken Shale News, Wells, Formation, Markets and Resources: Oil …

Bakken Shale Image The Bakken shale is primarily an oil play. It straddles the US border with Canada and runs through two states – North Dakota and Montana …

 

Scott Pruitt Has Flip-Flopped About Climate Change

Scott Pruitt, president Donald Trump’s nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has flip-flopped about the issue of climate change.

Scott Pruitt Has Flip-Flopped About Climate Change

 Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has flip-flopped about the issue of climate change. He has clearly demonstrated over the years and throughout his confirmation hearing that he is not the person who should be the head of the EPA.

Scott Pruitt is allegedly closely tied to the oil and gas industry. In 2014, Scott Pruitt was caught in a secret alliance with members of the oil and gas industry in trying to tear down air pollution standards, even to the point of helping them file lawsuits against federal regulators. Scott Pruitt himself has personally filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency to undermine President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. How can the citizens of the United States entrust the protection of our environment to someone who has sued the agency responsible for protecting it? The answer is, they cannot.

Scott Pruitt has even defended the practice of fracking, the extremely dangerous practice used by the oil and gas industry to extract oil and gas from the earth, despite that this method has been shown to increase the number of greenhouse gasses released into the environment. Greenhouse gasses are the reason behind global warming and climate change.

Scott Pruitt seems to have changed his tune about climate change during his confirmation hearing.  During his hearing, Scott Pruitt now admits that climate change is real, but refused to acknowledge that human activity causes it, to which Senator Bernie Sanders called him out and tried to get him to answer the question about what causes global warming. Scott Pruitt then tried to engage Senator Sanders in an argument about to what degree human activity has on climate change, even though 97% of the scientific community agrees that human activity causes climate change. All he did was make himself look stupid and less qualified to be the administrator of the EPA.

In Scott Pruitt’s 2013 reelection campaign for Attorney General of Oklahoma, his campaign manager just happened to be a man named Harold Hamm, who happened to be the CEO of one of the largest fracking companies in Oklahoma. Recently, Mr. Hamm became one of the biggest proponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline because his business will be doing most of the fracking in North Dakota. If this is the type of person that Scott Pruitt chooses to be his campaign manager, is he as big of a believer in climate change as he says? I doubt it!

 

What is Climate Change? What Causes Global Warming?

Climate change, also called global warming, refers to the rise in average surface temperatures on Earth. An overwhelming scientific consensus maintains that …
Clean Energy: The United States Missing Out On a Golden Opportunity

As the Paris climate talks begin, the die is already cast: The world is going to move toward cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy. The question for U.S. policymakers is whether the world’s biggest economy gets left behind. Source: Clean Energy Gathers Steam | Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines Clean Energy: United …

 

 

Senator Bernie Sanders Grills Scott Pruitt About Climate Change

Senator Bernie Sanders Grills Scott Pruitt About Climate Change

Senator Bernie Sanders grills Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about his position on climate change. Senator Sanders gets Scott Pruitt to admit that President-elect Donald Trump was wrong when he made the statement that climate change/global warming was a hoax. Scott Pruitt readily admits that he believes otherwise.

However, when Senator Sanders tries to ask Pruitt his opinion about why the climate is changing, Pruitt tries to evade the Senators question by saying that his opinion is, “immaterial”. Senator Sanders disagrees about Pruitt’s opinion being “immaterial”, especially since he will be in charge of the agency that is supposed to protect the environment. Scott Pruitt then says that he will do what ever the law requires to enforce environmental regulations.

Senator Sanders points out that 97% of the scientific community says that climate change is caused by human activity. Scott Pruitt then gets into a debate about semantics, saying that the climate is,” impacted” by human activity. Preferring to take the little interpretation of what the scientific community actually said, Senator Sanders argues with Pruitt over the difference between “impact” and “causes”, because Pruitt tries to make light of a very important topic that will confront him as head of the EPA.

Senator Sanders then goes on to make a point about Scott Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma having a record number of earthquakes and the relationship between these earthquakes and fracking (a.k.a. hydraulic fracturing). Senator Sanders asks Pruitt about what he has personally done in his home state to hold the fracking companies accountable. Again, Scott Pruitt becomes evasive and tries very hard to escape from Senator Sanders relentless questioning. Senator Sanders tries to get Scott Pruitt to be more specific about what actions he has taken in Oklahoma, and Pruitt tells about how he has expressed his concern about the problem of increased earthquakes in Oklahoma. He tries very hard to dodge the issue, but Senator Sanders displays his usual tendency to be relentless when questioning someone at a hearing. You can almost see Scott Pruitt squirming in his seat under the pressure that Senator Bernie Sanders puts on him.

At the end, Senator Sanders said that Scott Pruitt will not get his vote. Right on, Bernie!

 

Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A. …

Dec 7, 2016 Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Wednesday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.
Who is Scott Pruitt, Trump’s anti-EPA choice to lead the EPA …

Dec 14, 2016 Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has led lawsuits against the EPA. He has written the scientific debate over climate change is “far from …

 

Fracking in North Dakota: More Raping Of Our Environment

One of the reasons that environmentalists, and other people, are opposed to further development of the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota is because it requires the use of a controversial and dangerous technique known as fracking, or hydraulic fracturing.

Fracking in North Dakota: More Raping of Our Environment

fracking_03 One of the reasons that environmentalists, and other people, are opposed to further development of the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota Is because it requires a controversial and dangerous technique known as fracking or hydraulic fracturing.

Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing is a dangerous process that uses millions of gallons of water and tons of harmful chemicals are pumped underground, under tremendous pressure.  These pressurized materials force all gasses, including everything from natural gas to toxic greenhouse gasses.  Among these greenhouse gasses is methane gas, long known to be one of the most harmful of the greenhouse gasses.

Fracking has been used extensively to extract oil from the Bakken Shale.  It’s frightening to think about the amount of methane gas has been released into the atmosphere, as result of fracking in North Dakota.  Fracking Bakken Oil has probably caused extensive environmental damage at an incredible rate.

At a time when people who care about the environment are trying to get away from our dependency on fossil fuels, is exploiting the Bakken formation worth it?

 

The Obama Administration and the Bakken Oil Field

The Obama Administration And the Bakken Oil Field The environmental policy of the Obama administration has always been a mystery to me.  On the one hand, the president says that we must end our dependency on fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas, yet when it comes to controversial issues like …

Fracking | Food & Water Watch

Fracking is an unsafe process that harms our drinking water and health. The push for fracking hurts communities and worsens climate change. But we can stop …

 

The Obama Administration and the Bakken Oil Field

The environmental policy of the Obama administration has always been a mystery to me.

The Obama Administration And the Bakken Oil Field

Bakken oil fieldThe environmental policy of the Obama administration has always been a mystery to me.  On the one hand, the president says that we must end our dependency on fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas, yet when it comes to controversial issues like the Bakken oil field, President Obama takes no position on this controversial subject.  This issue begs the question for President Obama, “do you mean what you say or are you just trying to be politically expedient.”

By remaining silent on the issue of exploiting the oil contained in the Bakken oil field, it makes one wonder if President Obama is genuine in his environmental policy.  Why he doesn’t recognize the dangers of oil companies being allowed to have their way on Bakken oil field production is beyond me.  More than that, why doesn’t President Obama get more involved on the issue of this oil field, in North Dakota?

natural-vs-human-enhanced-greenhouse-effectThe Obama administration has always taken a firm position against any further production of greenhouse gasses that causes global warming, yet he says nothing about a major source of greenhouse gasses, fracking.  Fracking is a dangerous practice that is being used extensively in Bakken oil production, primarily because the oil companies are taking the oil from an area known as the Bakken formation, a vast area of shale known as Bakken Shale.  This area is particularly environmentally sensitive because of a large aquifer, or water table, exists under the Bakken oil field.  This aquifer supplies the drinking water for the people living in this area.  The fracking process being used to extract the oil endangers this water supply.r

If the Obama administration is serious about its environmental position, why does is allow the extensive fracking in North Dakota to continue?  The major question for me is, “is the president sincere about his wish to slow down the production of greenhouse gasses, or is he just paying this crucial issue more lip service?”

 

Bakken oil field is causing a rise in air pollution, study says …

Apr 29, 2016 WASHINGTON — An oil and natural gas field in the western United States is largely responsible for a global uptick of the air pollutant ethane, …

The New Oil Landscape – Pictures, More From National Geographic …

The fracking frenzy in North Dakota has boosted the U.S. fuel supply–but at what cost?

 

 

The Hype For Natural Gas

At time when there is huge controversy over fracking for natural gas, I have noticed a disturbing trend in advertising where they are trying to sell us on the use of natural gas.

The Hype For Natural Gas

At a time when  there is huge controversy over fracking for natural gas, I have noticed a disturbing trend in advertising  where they are to sell us on the use of natural gas.   In this advertising,  they are even stooping so low as to  say that fracking is safe technology.   For anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to widely publicized scientific findings and paid attention to  environmentalists,  they should know  that fracking is hardly safe.   In fact,  fracking for natural gas has been  proven to be  of the  most dangerous and polluting  techniques ever devised.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this entire issue is the fact that at a time when fracking should be banned, instead, there is a fracking boom. Even though this fracking boom has been going on since the late 70s, especially in states like New York and Pennsylvania, it has only come under heavy public scrutiny within the last several years.

President Obama, even though he has been one of the strongest advocates against the use of fossil fuels, such as, coal and petroleum, he doesn’t seem to include natural gas as a fossil fuel.  I’m afraid he may have allowed himself to be co-opted by the oil/gas industry.  In my opinion, President Obama should be advocating more strongly for the use of wind and solar power.  To his credit, he has advocated for the use of these things but just not strongly enough.  He has allowed himself to become a part of the hype for natural gas.

The president has also been one of the strongest advocates for reducing greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. If he is truly sincere about his desire to reduce greenhouse gases, he certainly should not be for increased use of natural gas because it involves the harmful practice of fracking. It is a well-known fact that fracking pushes huge amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere. Methane gas is one of the worst possible greenhouse gases, and the last thing the president should be advocated for increased use of natural gas

Granted, natural gas is the least polluting of the fossil fuels, but its usage doesn’t go without a price. When natural gas burns, it releases carbon dioxide, another harmful greenhouse gas. Since CO2 emissions have increased over the last several years, the last thing we need is even more use of natural gas

Even though it sounds like I’m putting down President Obama, in truth, I applaud his efforts at giving us a cleaner environment. I hope he continues his fight against greenhouse gases, but I just wish he would not push natural gas as much as he does.

The president has also been one of the strongest advocates for reducing greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. If he is truly sincere about his desire to reduce greenhouse gases, he certainly should not be pushing for increased use of natural gas because it involves the harmful practice of fracking. It is a well-known fact that fracking pushes huge amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere. Methane gas is one of the worst possible greenhouse gases, and the last thing the president should be advocated for increased use of natural gas.

In my opinion, President Obama should be stronger in encouraging the use of solar and wind power.